Discussing Paul Elam and MGTOW
The essential of our practice: male and female differences
are only eliminated when we realize that union is the supreme goal for both.
I want to sit here and give my FULL attention to you. That
is what we actually want, all of us. The problem comes from desire. I don't
know whether men or women have more desire or different qualities of desire.
The quality of their desire may differ due to their sexuality, but being free
of desire is the key to union, i.e., the key to being free of the thought that
union in prema is not the highest achievement. That all the things -- house,
money, riches, fame, achievements, success, conquest -- any of those things can
be a substitute for prema.
A woman might think that she can achieve those things <i>through <i> a man. A man is
more often just thinking about the sexual payoff. And this it the matrix on
which the sexes play their game. Purification of the mind through bhakti and
yoga is the necessary prerequisite for even understanding what union is.
Otherwise, the best anyone can manage is a feeble materialistic shadow of the
reality.
I want to sit face to face and see and feel the presence of
the Divine Truth <i>in <i> the
other. And I want you to feel and know that in me. And sādhana does not mean
anything else but doing that because being free of rajas and tamas and being
able to do that for five minutes or ten minutes (for hours on end without
stopping) is not sādhana, it is siddhi. It is samādhi. It is expanded into
infinity. It is the highest pleasure so why call it a sadhana.
It is a `sādhana~ because the `saṁskāras~ of `rajas~ and `tamas~
still overcome us.
The advantage of Yugal Bhajan [and there are problems there too
that need to be recognized] is that you help each other. Out of love. Because
you need each other to achieve fullness.
Male and female manoeuvering is really a misunderstanding of
purpose.
I think it would be worth it for a feminist to listen to the man's point of view. Radhe Radhe.
Strong stuff. You should listen to this , It supports your
glimpse theory. The "glimpse" = chasing the dragon.
There is a lot of truth, but not necessarily Truth.
I have a response, but I would like to hear yours. Not just
a put-down.
Nandini
Its propaganda, does not look at the issue accurately nor
compassionately.
Do you have compassion for the male point of view? Chasing
the Dragon would be a good start.
Well, he is a bit strong from time to time. But the matter is balance. Some of it resonates with my experience with you. Do you believe it?
I went through a lot of negatives in my experience with you. Perhaps that counts for yours? I mean, it's always mutual. That is why I said the ideal is when both souls would understand that in the dual any outcome is 50 50 responsibility. Gain or loss
Jagadananda
Agreed. Let's keep that as a principle.
Nandini
Finally!
Jagadananda
Male and female manoeuvering is really a misunderstanding of
purpose.
Nandini
These videos, they are not compassionate because not
spiritually informed. Consequently they are horseshit.
Who is that man and is he happily married? I bet not. But if
so, feel sorry for both
This fear of women, it is the stuff of darkness. No wonder
Western men are not quick to react to Islamic invasion
Nandini
Wow. Shockingly wow. Women has to educate the men they love:
"Please don't kill me, we might have a chance it is love." You fell
for that man's propaganda, so did or does Ananda Gal
No, but Islam does. And he is inadvertently opening the
doors for Islam. nearly falling
Jagadananda
He says that men are dominated by women.
Nandini
listening to that is already too late, misleading, not
proper guidance. Poison
yes he says that, and it is false. It is inaccurate
Jagadananda
Are men dominated by women? Do you dominate RD? Do you
manipulate? Do you think Anne dominated me?
Nandini
Men are dominated by their own fear of not having access to
sex.
Jagadananda
I am not saying it is one way. Do women use that to their
own advantage? That is actually what he is saying.
Nandini
Both genders "use" natural traits to be what we
are
Jagadananda
So is any male=female relationship automatically one of
mutual exploitation?
Nandini
Yes. But the root desire is for true love. Spiritual
traditions recommend renunciation . But it seems to fail more than help.
Jagadananda
This is also what he said. (Elam). His quote, "A man's
mental health can be measured by how capable he is of saying no to a
woman."
Nandini
Saying no to a woman? Why not say no to his own desire, that
should be easier
Jagat
Well, it comes to the same thing.
Nandini
Not at all. Can't you see the difference? Blaming someone
outside yourself is the stuff of fools. First lesson in self liberation
This man is an idiot. Why do you waste your time. I am not saying
that the wrong kind of feminism isn't a waste of precious human time. They are
both wrong.
Jagadananda
That is true. But if a woman is using the man's weakness to
take advantage for her own benefit, rather than the kind of spriitual mutuality
that I see as the goal, then she is also culpable. It is the ability of each
individual to have the guts and intelligence to recognize dishonesty and
selfishness wherever it exists. Not that women are somehow always right, and
men always wrong.
Nandini
I am not saying they are
Jagadananda
Your sentence with "wrong kind of feminism"
doesn't compute.
OK. Well that is the main thing then.
Jagadananda
He is saying many similar things to you. "They are
afraid of losing love and approval." You are right, and I agree, and he
agrees, it is a question of emotional and spiritual immaturity. Which is based
in sex desire, and the desire to be loved and approved.
Nandini
Yes. But he is blaming women for the outcome. If he
understood the entire process, or if he were throughly honest about it, he
would see he can't blame one party for the desire of the other. It's like
shoppers blaming a store for having stuff to sell
Jagadananda
I did not get that. I understood that he was saying that
society has been manipulated to the advantage of women. And that women do take
advantage of it. Materialistic women and materialistic men.
Nandini
That is not true. Women don't have advantages in human
society. That was in fact what started what today is called feminism.
Jagadananda
Well, you might be prejudiced.
Nandini
How? Do you really think women are not exploited by men? How
am I prejudiced? Explain?
Jagadananda
Do you think women also, within the parameters of
male-female biology, not take advantage?
Nandini
Sure, it does happen in biology. Explain how I, myself as an
individual, am prejudiced? You raised the question. So, explain?
Jagadananda
Oh, I was only saying that you are not capable of
empathizing with the other side.
Nandini
why do you say I am not capable of empathizing? Just
explain, please? You are not making it clear
Jagadananda
Because you demonize the guy without dealing with what he
says as a whole. You just call him a woman hater and leave it at that.
Nandini
Why do you use the word "demonize"? I said he is
an idiot. A demon can be intelligent. He is not dealing with facts.
Unscientific. I dismiss him on the basis of false information
Jagadananda
In my view, men have ALWAYS served women. It takes different
forms and is often hidden behind men's lack of self-awareness or spiritual
self-understanding or appreciation of woman as a spiritual being and spiritual partner.
In all times and places, it HAS been possible for such spiritual communion to
take place, but where one or the other side of the equation is defective, this
spiritual union is not achieved.
Nandini
If men have always served women, why are women seeking
freedom from patriarchy?
Jagadananda
Men serve women because women have children and therefore
are limited in their freedom to do the things that are necessary for provision
and protection. In modern society things are different and so the rules have
changed. Making it a bit more difficult.
That is a bit illusory. Women are still making demands of
men. As they always have.
Women will still be different from men.
How do you think that LOVE can be increased? How does
feminism serve that purpose? If it is all about power, then there is never
going to be any love. The purpose of the genders will be seen as a source of
spiritual bondage only and never a source of elevation spiritually.
Why have men been
<i>afraid <i> of women? Why have men escaped from women into
the forest caves?
This is assumed to be the crux of patriarchy, but surely
there is more to it than that.
Nandini
The only protection women need from men is protection
against other men. NOT because of gestating children. Nature and of course
modern world shows that females can be single mothers and protect their
children just fine. I am not saying this a good thing. But it does show that
the "protection" argument is not dealt with honestly
Jagadananda
Thing is that men have served women. And to keep things
functioning properly, the woman was also told to serve the husband, in a fair
exchange. But women think that it is unequal. Now that the baby problem is no
longer there, they don't see why they should be subject to the same
arrangement. Which is good.
Too many men raised by single mothers may well be part of
the problem.
Nandini
It's a consequence. You still argue in a emotional way, not
science there, my friend.
Jagadananda
Well, I think that women really do underestimate what they
get from men. This is why homosexuality is increasing, in my opinion. Men can't
be bothered with demanding women, women can't be bothered by needy men.
What science do you want? There is plenty of stuff on these
subjects, but people pick and choose. But you cannot deny the history of
anthropology and human evolution. Come on.
What do you want, statistics? What kind of statistics do you
want?
Nandini
Who is denying history and anthropology?
What science do I want? Facts. isnt it a fact that men rape
more than women do? And isn't rape by men a huge, terrible problem for human
society since time immemorial?
Jagadananda
I concede the point. But is that the only issue? Are all men
rapists?
Nandini
It's the central point. The elephant in the room.
Jagadananda
"Elephant in the room" means it is everywhere.
Nandini
This sense of entitlement leads to videos like that. Women
are careful to not hurt the men they love, partner, son, father, etc, so we
don't put the question individually. But as a group, the gender is really
predatory.
Nandini
yes it is everywhere. That is why darkness, Islam will dictate
executions
and all men will stand by silent and afraid. Still afraid,
after all these millenniums.
Jagadananda
Protecting women from other men seems like a pretty big job.
Nandini
We have all been the opposite gender in previous births. Yes
it is the worst job, I would not want it. Men are predators to females. For
some reason this planet was set up like that.
Nandini
It turns out it is the woman who protects the man. Against
himself. But that mode of protection does not do the complete job: A man
becomes then "manipulated" and the woman corrupt. Just as the sastra
says.
So, back to the subject of men-woman. Tthe thing is, while
this mutual exploitation goes on there isn't room for mature love, for a yugala
bhajan that you propose. Because the mood is rasabhasa, mother-son, Vatsalya
predominates. I have been saying for years, men must mature. It seems spiritual
traditions can only go so far as renunciation.
Maybe the Goswamis saw manjari bhava as that evolutionary
link. I think they did. Rupa Goswami seems to have. Anyway, that is the only
way I can accept this tradition. Otherwise, as I said, I can't pretend I am
convinced by yet another system of denial of facts.
Jagadananda
Well, that was my original theory also, about manjari bhava.
I seem to have become a little shaken in my clarity. That is one reason I need
to work with you.
One of the claims of the anti-NWO (New World Order, for want
of a better term, but into which I lump mostly anti-Jewish propaganda) Brother
Nathanael being the last specimen I have been examining, is that Jews in their
quest for world domination are doing everything to undermine the moral fibre of
Western Christian civilization. They hate Christianity. (He shows a couple of
videos -- Larry David pissing on a picture of JC, Sarah Silverman saying she
would crucify JC again -- and so though they keep a certain morality intact
within their own community, "for the Goys" they promote
homosexuality, feminism, pornography, liberal ideas in every domain, in order
to weaken the cultural fabric.
This is how the Jewish absolute control over the media is
manifest.
Nandini
I am also hopeful that I can work with you.
Jagadananda
It will work out as long as we are equals. But equal to me
means equally totally committed to the third point of the triangle (as in my
diagram).
Nandini
Agreed about American Jewish media. But Islam is about as
bad, perhaps worse. And unfortunately within Gaudiya Vaishnavism Islam still
dictates behavior.
Nandini
I agree about the third party being the solution. It is kind
of obvious.
Jagadananda
Why do you think GV is influenced by Islam?
Nandini
It is not just my "thinking". It is.
Jagadananda
How so? You have to go down a pretty deep hole to get to
Islam -- FGM, multiple wives, burkas, etc.
Nandini
where gender relations are concerned, it is. Sex for
procreation only never left Islam. And Islam never left Gaudiyaism, although my
theory is that the eradication of this problem was PRECISELY the intention of
Rupa and Sanatana. Sex for procreation only was never a part of Islam. Rape,
however, was. Genital mutilation was. Confinement of women was.
These practices you list are the aberration, the obvious
outcome of an aberration. There is only a thin ice layer keeping all religions
from collapsing back in to that dark place. Islam is just the raw reality if
male fear of female.
Jagadananda
Some of those things influenced Hinduism, but it seems to me
that rasika bhakti is almost diametrically opposed to most Islamic ideas.
Nandini
Yes! Rasikbhakti is the antidote
Jagadananda
What do men have to be afraid of? They mostly just don't
like to be nagged.
Nandini
As I said, there isn't much distance from your resistance to
facts in this matter, for example, an educated and very intelligent western
Christiam raised male, and the psychological acceptance of a practice, such as
GM
Why do say "they" and not "I"?
Jagadananda
And if they are low level, sex on demand.
Nandini
Nagged?! Wow. We were talking about rape, no?
Jagadananda
So you think GV promotes rape culture?
Nandini
So yeah, men like to rape, and if that doesn't do it,
mutilate female's natural ability to feel pleasure. And you quickly switch to
the "nagging" argument.
Jagadananda
No I am talking about men generally. They don't like to be
nagged. Other than that, they are okay. It is the nagging that drives them
nuts. Of course, women might think the nagging is legitimate and that the men
have no right to react, but that is not quite the same.
The question was, What do men have to be afraid of from
women?
Nandini
I think Bhaktivedanta Swami did promote rape in a round
about way. Actually directly by saying that women are inferior and they like to
be raped.
Jagadananda
I think you give overmuch importance to that. But even if he
did, that hardly means it can be generalized to GV universally.
Nandini
We were talking about rape, not nagging. Can you stay with
the subject?
Jagadananda
I am talking about why are men afraid of women? What's to be
afraid of? Rape culture is Islam, a warrior culture where rape is seen as a
benefit of war. I don't see that ANYWHERE in GV.
Nandini
I think I and specially you don't give enough importance to
that detail. This is actually the one thing, the central thing that led me to
lose faith, trust in you: that you trivialize this rather essential, central
issue.
Jagadananda
Answer my question and stop making assumptions. I think that
you overstate it. And I don't see you responding. And why is it that you don't
answer my question about fear?
Nandini
Because you don't see it doesn't mean it is not there
Jagadananda
I am asking YOU to answer my question. And I am not
trivializing anything. Believe me, nagging is a BIG deal.
Jagadananda
I am asking you to tell me why men are afraid of women. That
seems to be a big part of the premise here. I agree there is something to it.
But I need you to explain how you understand it.
I don't agree that rape culture is a part of GV. And indeed I think that really with the exception of Islam, all religions are about killing the rape spirit.
Nandini
Maybe. Possibly. But if so, no tradition has succeeded yet. And
perhaps because of rape culture is unconsciously sustained by a denial culture
Jagadananda
That is to underestimate the truth. If it were not the case,
then no man would be able to stop himself from raping. Yet, we see that in most
cases, in most societies, most men (high %) are able to go through life without
raping, unless we set the bar for rape so low that any kind of sexual advance
is said to equal rape. If it were not the case that religions have to some
extent succeeded in controlling men's (and women's) lowest instincts.
Here is what you said, "Islam is just the raw reality
of male fear of female." And I asked you several times to explain that
statement.
Nandini
Jagat, I am completely convinced that Srila Prabhupada made
a mistake in not seeing the potential negativity if his opinion, his
speculation. And his followers are now (like you are doing right now) , make an
even bigger mistake by not rectifying that error.
Jagadananda
that leads to violence
Nandini
ok. I will address that. Lets get it clear first: Are you
saying that the root cause of rape, of violence, is female nagging?
Jagadananda
Of course not.
Nandini
But you did say that you equate fear with nagging?
Jagadananda
What does fear have to do with rape?
Like when Mohammad's soldiers came into Iraq and slaughtered
the men and raped the women, and took the good-looking young ones for wives and
killed the old and ugly ones. Where was the fear? I mean I can see an argument,
but I want to hear yours.
Nandini
Fear of not having access to sex will lead a man to
violence. Bhagavad Gita 2.62. Not having access to sex is not the same as fear
of women.
Jagadananda
You mean fear that they will say no?
Nandini
Yes! Some genius you are, geez.
Jagadananda
Then basically you are equating "nagging" with
"fear." Is that fear, really?
Nandini
Are you saying a female saying no to see is equal to
nagging?
Jagadananda
Nagging to me is a complicated way of saying no, with lots of
added bad feeling.
Nandini
No to sex. And isn't saying no to sex a universal right of
the Jiva? By nagging I thought you meant actually nagging. But now I see you
have a different definition. Just for perspective: "Nagging, in
interpersonal communication, is repetitious behaviour in the form of pestering,
hectoring, harassing, or otherwise continuously urging an individual to
complete previously discussed requests or act on advice."
Jagadananda
Of course it is. But a man who is with a woman has some
expectation of having his craving for union, on whatever level of consciousness,
fulfilled. That is a major purpose of his getting married or into a
relationship. The woman holds power over him because of his sex desire. When
she refuses him, she is using really the one weapon she has. Even if she
succumbs, if she does not give her heart to him, then he is (especially if on a
lower level of consciousness, and that really IS what we are talking about)
likely to become angry.
But religion is about countering that tendency. And to a
great extent it is successful. But in modern society, I think we have a hyper
expansion of sexual stimulation but a general reduction of capacity for
spiritual maturity and love. But her weapon is VERY powerful. And EVERY woman
knows it.
Nandini
And because he becomes angry to a trait that is naturally
his responsibility (a male body), the female partner or partners have to pay
for it in the form of being victim of violence? But no. Not every woman knows
it. That is your speculation
Jagadananda
Well YOU know it.
I am not defending. What I am defending is the role of
religion in attenuating this tendency. How does GV promote rape culture? Or any
other religion, for that matter? How does Buddhism promote rape culture? How
does Christianity promote rape culture? Islam we can leave out of it.
Nandini
I am sorry but it sounds like you speak for yourself. Which
is fine, of course, but to make this universal and therefore the wYs of God,
please one Mohamed is already too many
Jagadananda
And your daughters no doubt know it. I am sure you taught
them.
Nandini
How do all these traditions promote rape culture? By
refusing to leave women alone, without the obligation to subject to a male
sexually.
Jagadananda
What are you talking about?
Nandini
You are being insulting towards me and my daughters. I will
not engage if you don't check yourself. Sorry but you are being jerk in this
regard. read read read
Jagadananda
You are telling me that you never discussed the power that a
woman has over a man?
Nandini
Never. But you, on your side, have been speculating all
these years in this regard.
Jagadananda
OK. I never discussed with my son also. Nevertheless, I
think that media has made it clear. I think frankly that it is instinctive in a
woman. She knows where her power lies. And believe me, it is not small stuff.
Nandini
Radharani gave you a woman who loved unconditionally, and
you lost it to a mundane concept of female psychology. Hence "we"
failed.
Jagadananda
Well, if we want to understand the higher realms of love, we
need to be sanguine about the realities. One of the things I am accused of is
trying to bring Radha and Krishna into the realm of the mundane. So we have to
know how to make distinctions.
Nandini
well doh. but your own version of "facts" are not
going to make them facts. It has to do with the triangle,
Jagadananda
YOU are not answering the question honestly. Does female
sexual love represent the real power a woman has over a man? She can withhold
her love and that is what the man wants. The man, if he is weak, succumbs to
the woman and becomes straiṇa, in the Sanskrit. This is what is always spoken
of when the stri-sangi is condemned.
And are you aware of this power? And are other women? Some
may be expert in wielding it, others less so, but nevertheless, it is their
power.
Not only is it their power, but it is the shakti that men
crave. So a woman that does not give her love to the man she has chosen in life
then he becomes powerless and weak.
I was saying that the Yugal is about harmonizing the exchange of energy. If you think of it as a mechanical process that generates Prema Shakti, then you want that mechanical process to function properly. That is in the interest of both the partners.
Most religions are focused on the reproductive aspects of
sex and the family life that results. Only Tantricism and Vaishnava Sahajiya
have thought about the problem a little more expansively.
The Yugal is a unity. There is no advantage to the male that
is not an advantage to the female. And vice versa.
Rape means thinking power is more important than love. It is
tamasik. Religion is about bringing people to sattva. Unless a man is predominated
by sattva, he will have tendency to rape.
The emphasis on renunciation in the Bhagavatam is to make
one free from the "woman's plaything" concept of manhood, where one
is controlled by a materialistic woman through slavery to sexual desire.
But this question does not arise if the couple is expert in bhajan. And for the sadhaka, renunciation or yukta vairagya is the essential practice of the sadhana.
I just want to say one thing about the me becoming free of
your influence or whatever it was. What I wanted to say was that even though I
take it as a conscious decision, and it is a conscious decision, even as I know
it is based in unconscious elements.
The thing is, what are these unconscious elements? Radha
Krishna myth lets us know that these are very deep rooted images and they
transform our concept of love and sexuality. It is a fairy tale, but it is a
fairy tale that has been given sacred or divine shakti. Indeed, it possesses
that shakti in its own right.\
So our job, in a way, is to actualize the myth. And that can
only really be done through becoming HOLY.
But not Catholic holy, Radha Krishna holy. Vasihnava holy. Rupa Sanatan holy.
Just aside here, you already said you did not like this man,
but please watch this video. About borderline personality disorder. What is
good, you see, is that he is talking to men, and you get the feeling that his
audience here is not necessarily our kind of people, more the trailer park
Americans, and he is warning them about real women that many of them know and
that are a product of their subculture. Nevertheless, I can recognize some of
those symptoms, I have seen them, though thank God I did not suffer most of
them myself.
And your urgency is to be free of my influence, right? Don't
worry, you can tell me the truth. We should be friends beyond all fear. Or so I
hope it is possible. You see, sometimes a mother will lie to protect her
children. But it shouldn't be that way, naturally. So, from experience, I know
that I am more powerful as a mother than as a lover.
Jagadananda
Nevertheless BPD is something that everybody always has a
bit of. That is a moral problem for us, while it is a psychological problem for
others. Now, of course, Babaji has started this Vedic psychology to help people
get from that pathologized mental state to somewhere where you can actually get
{Vedic{
Sorry. I will go read what you wrote. I found that video
gives a better understanding of the man than the other ones did.
Nandini
Babaji is behind us. Not saying I am superior. But he
doesn't know from experience.
Jagadananda
Give him benefit of doubt.
Nandini
Yes: to the nature of those videos. And as for its audience,
I know! I have been around this redneck culture in more than one country in my
life, trust me.
We have discussed this so many times: I do give him the
benefit of the doubt. But still think he is behind. Just be objective and don't
worry so much about defending your choices. But they are yours, not mine. I am
not talking like a "woman" in this. I am talking as an individual
soul.
Jagadananda
You see Govinda. I know this is only barely a conscious
choice on my part. I was just reading about faith in Bhagavatam, and Gita also
says we are our faith, a human being is permeated by his faith,
Anyway I found that video to be quite good. He explains BPD
nicely and also is quite descriptive of the character of the woman of whom he
speaks. I never meet women like that, at least not that kind of woman, though I
know walking about in the USA that they exist.
So that made me understand a bit better where he is coming
from. BUT, at the same time he is reading from the Psych Manual and those
characteristics appear in us too.
Nandini
I told you I know exactly his arguments and agree he is not
entirely wrong
Jagadananda
OK, you don't want to watch, but in our own mild way, we
have both shown symptoms of BPD. Of course, I in particular have done so, but
we cannot blind ourselves to some of the other characteristics that appeared in
you.
Nandini
but because he doesn't address the complete picture, it is
outside my range of priority.
Jagadananda
That is not to say that we are mentally ill. Other than in
the sense that every conditioned soul is mentally ill.
Nandini
Jagat, let me just say to you that when it comes to you
catching up, what happens to the dynamic between us is that the mother
tolerating a teenager is triggered. and I show symptoms of displeasure.
In fact, the best sadhana is one in which we cure each other
through love. But the big characteristic of a big burst of love, putting on a
pedestal and then losing all genuine vision of that person, etc. these are like
features of love in general, but can be exaggerated.
Nandini
You are just now discovering what I saw two years ago: that
we are mentally instable. Yes, I should control those, but only within the
context of a sadhana.
Jagadananda
That is NOT what I am saying. I am saying that these are
natural characteristics of prema. If you know and master the sadhana, all your
desires will be fulfilled.
Nandini
As you know, I have been questioning the concept of sadhana.
Not rejecting, but questioning, perhaps just probing
Jagadananda
The thing is, because we don't do the sadhana, or only do it
incompletely, that we don't take the raw material of our attraction, our
glimpse, and turn it into PREMA.
Well, probe by doing more. Actually, this IS our
sadhana. At least it is one dimension of it. And then thinking about these
things is also part of it. But there are stronger and more direct sadhanas,
like meditation and japa and kirtan and making love. These sādhanas, done in
Radha Krishna bhakti consciousness.
Nandini
I have been trying to communicate to you that I don't think
it is a matter of "doing" a sadhana. Ok, fine. But in my case it has
to be directed by my own feelings in the process. Otherwise I will keep saying
no.
Jagadananda
Yes, well what can I say? I was talking above before I got
sidetracked about the Gita 17.3 and sraddha. The importance of shraddha. That
we are and of course act according to our faith. Faith is always hard to
define, but belief is appropriate in most cases.
Fine I would never expect anything else. I consider
convincing you of my philosophy to be my principal aim in life.
Nandini
As for a formula for everyone, I don't think we can present
this as anything but the development of tantra within GAUDIYA Vaishnavism.
Jagadananda
And also to learn to explain it by talking to you and
explaining it to you. Letting it manifest through your grace is the way I look
at it.
Nandini
I am convinced where I can see it connected with my own
faith.
Jagadananda
That is exactly the point. That is my life's job, from which
all other fruits will fall. As long as it gives you pleasure to discuss these
things, I will hopefully get some insight by your grace.
Nandini
But you have to admit that we are not going to become a
regular couple in this world. Sādhana for you is different than from me. And
you need to stop blaming me for the difference. This is what Krishna arranged,
if you have faith.
Jagadananda
Well, I am thinking of you, my dear. I am thinking of the
highest pleasure for YOU. I am thinking how can I serve the woman I love in a
REAL way, by giving her the summum bonum of PREM. This philosphy, this sādhana
IS the third point of the triangle.
I just want to say one thing about the me becoming free of
your influence or whatever it was. What I wanted to say was that even though I
take it as a conscious decision, and it is a conscious decision, even as I know
it is based in unconscious elements.
The thing is, what are these unconscious elements? Radha
Krishna myth lets us know that these are very deep-rooted images and they
transform our concept of love and sexuality. It is a fairy tale, but it is a
fairy tale that has been given sacred or divine shakti. Indeed, it possesses
that shakti in its own right.\
So our job, in a way, is to actualize the myth. And that can
only really be done through becoming HOLY. But not Roman Catholic holy, Radha Krishna
holy. Vaishnava holy. Rupa
Sanatan holy.
Nandini
But God knows, I am about to leave Gaudiya Vaishnavism. I
might have gotten Markus Ananda's curse.
Jagadananda
Just chant Radhe Shyam Radhe Shyam. Which is what I am going
to do now. Don't moan. Radhe Radhe
Nandini
I am fine. Just confiding to you. I am not moaning, I feel
it is inevitable to move on. I think that might be precisely the fear that is
under all your search through videos right now: that you are seeing that our
grand Prema theory was just our own fantasy
but what I am still concerned with is the glimpse. It is
real because it is informed by faith
Didn't you say recently that Dham means effulgence? Wouldn't
that mean halo? The effulgence of a soul is what concerns that soul, her
environment, what it brings to other souls the maximum amount of joy. Something
like that. Faith is the halo of Srimati Radharani.
Comments